DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 097 350 TM 003 978

AUTHOR Valentine, Lonnie D., Jr.; Cowan, Douglas K.TITLE Comparability Study of Armed Services Vocational

Aptitude Battery Scores from Answer Sheet and AnswerCard Administration. Final Report.

INSTITUTION Air Force Human Resources Lab., Lackland AFB, Tex.Personnel Research Div.

REPORT NO AFHRL-TR-73-55PUB DATE Jan 74NOTE 16p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Answer Sheets; *Comparative Analysis; Mil.Aary

Personnel; Occupational Tests; *Response Mode;*scores; Testing; Test Results; VocationalAptitude

IDENTIFIERS *Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

ABSTRACTArmed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)

Form 2 was standardized for Digitek answer sheets. In September 1973,the Digitek scoring facility at Randolph AFB will be inadequate tohandle anticipated scoring load. Consequently, ASVAB answer formshave been redesigned for processing via a Hewlett-Packard mark-sensereader from IBM card size forms which are more compressed than wasthe Digitek form. Score comparability from administrations on the twoanswer forms was investigated. It was found that the answer formchange had negligible effect on average examinee performance overallscore distributions, or correlations among the battery's tests.Significant Interaction between initial ability (as measured by theArmed Forces Qualification Test) and answer form used was found fortwo tests (Word Knowledge and Coding Speed); however the interactiondid not follow a clearcut pattern. It was recommended that existingASVAB conversion tables continue in use until completion of a fullrestandardization study. (Author)

R FORCE El

H

U

MA

AFHRL-TR-73.65

COMPARABILITY STUDY OF ARMED SERVICESVOCATIONAL APTITUDE BATTERY SCORESFROM ANSWER SHEET AND ANSWER CARD

ADMINISTRATION

By

Lonnie D. Valentine, Jr.Douglas K. Cowan

PERSONNEL RESEARCH DIVISIONLackland Air Force Base, Texas 78236

January 1974

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

u s DEPARTMENT or HEALTHEDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OP

EDUCATION, , tat f 4 uft) ,' I t) f1Ar. . v F t) I LP)...

.F CA'',14P4Y r P't .4)", t ,)c) N

t; ,:r; Nr., r v.. 4 :.)( Put4N° I r N4 9',. r, F );

t-P .. r)k, p,), 4, u pc,

S LABORATORY

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMANDBROOKS AIR FORCE BASE,TEXAS 78235

NOTICE

BESTCOPY

4161081E

When US Government drawings, specifications, or other data are usedfor any purpose other than a definitely related Governmentprocurement operation, the Government thereby incurs noresponsibility nor any obligation whatsoever, and the fact that theGovernment may have formulated, furnished, or in any way suppliedthe said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded byimplication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holder or anyother person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission tomanufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any waybe related thereto.

This final report was submitted by Personnel Research Division, AirForce Human Resources Laboratory, Lack land Air Force Base, Texas78236, under project 7719, with the Hq Air Force Human ResourcesLaboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235.

This report has been reviewed and cleared for open publication and/orpublic release by the appropriate Office of Information (01) inaccordance with AFR 190.17 and DoDD 5230.9. There is no objectionto unlimited distribution of this report to the public at large, or byDDC to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

This technical report has been reviewed and is approved.

LELAND D. BROKAW, ChiefPersonnel Research Division

HAROLD E. FISCHER, Colonel, USAFCommander

UnclassifiedSECURITY :LASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Rine Frnered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEREAD INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE OWL FTING FORM1 REHOR ' NUMBER

AFFIRIAR-73.55

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3 RECIPIENT''., cAT aLor, NUMBER

4 TITLE !old Sublett,'COMPARABILITY STUDY OF ARMED SERVICES VOCATIONALAVM DE BATTERY SCORES FROM ANSWER SHEET ANDANSWI.R CARD ADMINISTRATION

5 TYPE OF REPORT 6 PERIOD COVERED

Final

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOfq /Lonnie D.'Valentine, Jr.Douglas K. Co,,'in

6 CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(5)

9 PES FnrIMIN RGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Personnel Research DivisionAir Force Human Resources LaboratoryLackland Air Force Base, Texas 78236

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKAREA 6 WORK UNIT NUMBERS

77191002

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESSFig Air Force Human Resources LaboratoryBrooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME Pt ADORESS(if different from Controlling Office)

12. REPORT DATE

January 197413 NUMBER OF PAGES

14

15 SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

15a DECLASSIFICATION DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE

16 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT /of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the almtract entered in Block 20, if different from Report)

Ie. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES0

19. KEY 140 IDS (Continue on reverse side if nece.,saty and Identify by block number)

Armed E entices Vocational Aptitude Batteryanswer t mnatperform tnce comparabilityhigh school testing A .

20. ABSTRACT (Continue on teversu side If ne essary and identify by block number)

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) Form 2 was standardized for Digitek answer sheets. InSeptetnuer 1973, the Digitek scoring facility at Randolph APB will be inadequate to handle anticipated scoring load.Consequently, ASVAB answer forms have been redesigned for processing via a HewlettPackard marksatise readerfrom IBM card size forms which are more compressed than was the Digitek form. Score comparability fromadministrations on the two answer forms was investigated.

It was found that the answer form change had negligble effect on average examinee performance overall scoredistributions, or correlations among the battery's tests. Significant interaction between initial ability (as measured bythe AFQT) and answer form used was found for two tests Word Knowled e and Codin 1 Steed . hoWever the

DO "1 JAN"7 1 1473 EDITION OF 1 Nov 66 IS OBSOLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When beta entered)

UnclassifiedS5GURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Enter itd)

Item 20 Continued.

interaction did not follow a clearcut pattern. It was recommended that existing ASVAI3 conversion tables continuein use until completion of a full restandardization study.

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Wheft Data Entered)

PREFACE

This report describes effect of answer form change (from a sheet to IBM size cards)on performance on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Work wasaccomplished under Project 7719, Ai; Force Personnel System Development onSelection, Assignment, Evaluation, Quality Control, Retention, Promotion, andUtilization; Task 771910, Armed Forces Operational Selection Tests.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction 5

H. Procedure 5

III. Results 5

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 6

Refemces 14

Table

'444.04,

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1 Sample Distribution by AFQT Decile 7

2 Distribution of Educational Level 7

3 Number of Cases Reporting Completion of High School Mathematicsand Science Courses 7

4 AFQT Mental Category Distribution of Samples 7

5 Distribution of AQE Scores 8

6 Intercorrelations Among Twenty Variables 9

7 ASVAB Means and Standard Deviations for Samples 2XC and 2X 10

8 Analysis of Variance Summary 11

9 ASVAB Means and Standard Deviations with AFQT Deci les 12

10 Raw Score Distributions on Coding Speed 13

11 Raw Score Distributions for ASVAB Tests 2 Through 9 14

COMPARABILITY STUDY OF ARMED SERVICES VOCATIONAL.APTITUDE BATTERY SCORES FROM ANSWER SHEET AND

ANSWER CARL) ADMINISTRATION

I. INTRODUCTION

The Armed Services Vocational AptitudeBattery (SVAB), described by Vito la and Alley(1968) an ..1 Bayroff and Fuchs (1970), is currentlyoperation; 1 for testing of high school seniors involuntarily participating high schools throughoutthe United States. The current form of ASVABrequires the use of a DIGITEK answer sheet,scored on a DIGITEK DM100 optical scannerlocated at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.

With only one form of the ASVAB available,test security requirements dictated that alternateforms of the test be produced. Ceinsequently,ASVAB-2 and -3 were developed and were normedusing a geographically representative sample testedat specified Armed Forces Entrance andExamining Stations (AFEES). Beginning inSeptember 1973, ASVAB-2 will be used for highschool testing, with ASVAB-3 reserved as the jointservices qualifying entrance test.

Form-2 of the ASVAB was standardized on theDIGITEK answer sheets, but with the beginning ofhigh school testing during the fall of 1973, theDIGITEK DM-100 scoring capability at RandolphAFB will he inadequate to handle the anticipatedload.

A revised answer form, printed on a three partIBM card. was designed to replace the answersheet, will, a resultant reduction in the amount ofspace allowed examinees for answer marking. Therevised form was designed for scoring via theHewlett-Packard model WAOO /D mark sensereader also at Randolph AFB.

A prat iinary study, to compare the two testresponse 1:cording methods, was conducted atLackland ifB. Texas, to determine whether therewas test ne rin slippage due to answer form change.

II. PROCIDURI.

Two matched samples. each consisting of 248male USAF basic airmen assigned to LacklandAFB for processing and training, were admin-istered Fo..in 2 of the ASVAB. One sample wasadministered Form 2XC (answer card format)while the ether was tested on ASVAB Form 2X(answer slit et format). The samples were matched

5

on Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT)scores contained in their records. Matching wascompleted for as many percentile scores as

available from within the total number of airmentested. Distribution of AFQT deciles for thesamples is given in Table 1.

Testing was accomplished under normal testingroom conditions. ASVAB-2XC and 2X wereadministered alternately during morning and after-noon testing sessions; each form was administeredan equal number of times during each half-day topreclude time-of-day effects. Scoring was accom-plished at Randolph AFB on the DIGITEKDM-100 for Form 2X and on the Hewlitt-Pachrdmark sense reader for Form 2XC.

Two samples were processed separately. Means,standard deviations, and Pearson Product Momentint ercorrelation matrices were computed fortwenty variables (these included years of educa-tion, AFQT, four composites from the AirmanQualifying Examination, data on completion ofspecific high school courses, and all nine tests ofthe ASVAB). In addition, each of the two sampleswas divided into eight subsamples based on AFQTdecile, and means and standard deviations of theASVAB tests were computed for each resultingsubsample. Raw score distributions on the nineASVAB tests were prepared for each of the twosamples.

For each ASVAB test, a two-way classificationanalysis of variance was computed to assess effectsof format and of the format x AFQT decile inter-action on scores. In this regard, it is noted that asignificant effect for AFQT decile would beexpected in all cases as a funrtion of correlationbetween AFQT and the test. Test norms, aspreviously established, are appropriate if in-consequential effects are found both for formatand for the interaction of AFQT decile withformat; a significant F ratio on either of theseeffects, however, would suggest normative adjust-ments as a consequence of format change.

III. RESULTS

Although the answer sheet sample (2X)contains fewer cases with education beyond highschool than does the answer card sample (2XC),the average educational levels are comparable.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Answer sheet sample airmen (2X) indicatedcompletion for more high school math and sciencecourses than did answer card sample cases (2XC)even though sample 2X(' had more airmencompleting 12 or more years of education (Tables2 and 31.

The two samples were matched on AFQT score;each case in sample 2X was matched with a sample2XC case with the same AFQT score. AFQT scoresappear to be fairly evenly distributed across thedeciles 20 through 90; there were no scores below20. Actual score range was 21 through 98. Enlist-ment is not authorized for mental category V( AFQT score 0 - 9) applicants, and recent policyhas also excluded those scoring below 21 onAFQT. The percentage of airmen in the samples'AFQT categories I through IV appear to be quitesimilar to the distribution for recent first termUSAF airman accessions. (Unpublished data. SeeTable 4 for AFQT category distributions.)

Further evidence of comparability of the twosamples was found in the distribution of AQEpercentile scores. While statistically significantdifferences were not found between the twogroups on any of the four AQE aptitudecomposites, there were small mean differences infavor of the answer sheet sample; the largest ofthese were on the Administrative (2.27) andElectronics (1.77) Ms. Distributions, means, andstandard deviations of the AQE composites areshown in Table 5.

Minor differences.of no significance were notedamong the intercorrelatiuns for the two samples.This serves as further evidence that format changedid not materially affect the battery (Table 6).

Table 7 shows, for both samples, means andstandard deviations for each ASVAB test. Inaddition, no significant ASVAB test meandifferences were found; the largest difference (.62)is on space perception. Thus, it can be seen thatthe format change makes no difference in averageperformance.

Outcomes of the nine two-way classificationanalysis of variance problems are summarized inTable 8. As expected, highly significant F ratioswere obtained in all cases for AFQT deck,reflecting correlation between the test and AFQT.In no instance was there a statistically significantanswer format main effect; this finding is

consistent with the quite small overall meandifferences between the two sanyies (largestdifference was .62 on space percept ion). Signifi-cant format x ANT decile effects were found fortwo of the nine tests. This interaction was

6

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

significant at the .01 level for word knowledge andat the .05 level for coding speed. Interestingly; thelargest interaction effect would have beenexpected on coding speed since it is a closelytimed test of simple clerical speed and accuracy:consequently, a change in size of the responseform had greater potential for affectingperformance of "high intelligence" and "lowintelligence" subjects differentially. An inspectionof the decileby-decile group means for the twoformat groups (Table 9) reveals that in AFQTdecile 20.29, mean coding speed performance ofthe answer sheet group is 6.16 raw score pointshigher than that of the answer card group, andthat in decile 50.59, a difference of about the.same magnitude occurs, but in favor of the answercard group. Other decile group means for codingspeed are approximately equal. In the case of theword knowledge test, format group means differ infavor of the card format group by a little morethan three raw score points in the AFQT decile50.59 and by a little over two raw score'points infavor of the answer sheet format in the AFQTdecile 60-69. Other decile group means are approximately equal.

These two significant interaction effects wouldsuggest possible differential effect of test responseformat change on test performance as a functionof level of AFQT performance. In both formatsamples, correlation between AFQT and codingspeed is quite modest (low .30s), and correlationbetween AFQT and word knowledge in bothsamples is in the low .50s. AFQT has served as thestandard against which ASVAB norms arecalibrated, but with these relatively modestcorrelations, it is possible that part of the withinAFQT decile difference washes out in conversionsutilizing the full samples (as a function of AFQTdecile distri!itional overlap). However, thiscannot be eltarly determined front these databecause of the truncation of the samples on AFQT(approximately the bottom 20 percent of thenormative reference population is nut representedhere).

Raw score distribution for both groups on allnine ASVAB tests are presented in Tables 10 and11. It is noteworthy that the ASVAB testdistributions of the two format samples differ verylittle from each other.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RI.COMMI.NDATIONS

The results of this.study suggest compaableASVAB score results using either the answer card

or the I )1G1.1 answer sheet. Presently estab-lished A:NABForm 2 norms may he satisfactorytier answ, card administration. Although a significant format by Al:QT decile interaction was foundon coding speed and word knowledge. overallmeans. s...indard deviations, and intercorrelationsfor the two format conditions are nearly the same.This suggests that, despite the significant inter-action or; these two tests. conversion tables maybe affected very little if at all.

Table 1. Sample Distributionby AFQT Decile

Sample*

AFQT Cecile 2XC 2X Total Percent

90.99 35 35 70 14.1180,89. 28 28 56 11.2970-79 30 30 60 12.1060.69 27 27 54 10.8950-59 33 33 66 13.314049 33 33 66 13.3130.39 37 37 74 14.91

20.29 25 25 50 10.08

Total 248 248 496 100.00

The two samples are evenly distributed across therange of AFQT scores. No score lower than 21 nor higherthan 98 was reported. The two samples arc pre.cisley matched on AFQT scores.

Table 2. Distribution of EducationalLevel

Sample*Ed ucat Ion

(years) 2 KC 2 X Total

8 3 59 4 9 13

10 23 19 4211 28 37 6512 147 145 29213 20 21 4114 15 10 2515 3 3 616 6 1 7

Tot al 248 248 496Mean 11.96 11.76 11.86S.D. 1.25 1.16 1.21

'A t t . of difference between the sample meansrevealed no agnificant difference (t = 1.83).

7

Because of AFQT truncation in the data forthis study, a final determination of whetherconversions for the ASVAB tests are affected byanswer form format change must await completionof a full standardization study. Data for such astudy have been collectedand are being analyzed.It is reconitnended that present conversions forASVAB Form 2 continue in use until completionof this standardization study.

Table 3. Number of Cases ReportingCompletion of High School Mathematics

and Science Courses

Course

Sample*

2 XC 2X

Algebra 154 162Geometry 95 106Trigonometry 29 40Chemistry 63 76Physics 34 42

'chi square tests revealed no significant differencesbetween the two groups.

Table 4. AFQT Mental CategoryDistribution of Samples

MentalCategory

Sample*

2XC 2X Total Percent*

(93.100)II

23 23 46 9.27

(65.92) 80 80 160 32.26III

(31.64) 116 116 232 46.77IV

(10.30) 29 29 58 11.69

Total 248 248 496 99.99

*Percentage of Basic Airmen in each mental categoryis similar to the percentage in each category enlisted intoUSAF during recent years (July 69 through September71).

Table 5 Distribution of AQE Scores

PercentileSample 2XC Sample 2X

Adm Elect Gen Mach Adm Elect Gen Mach

95 9 19 15 11 8 14 16 II90 2 10 6 13 7 18 8 1485 11 15 6 13 12 11 7 1980 4 20 8 5 10 22 16 1375 8 11 16 14 6 10 6 870 15 13 18 8 17 7 21 1365 17 5 15 10 12 10 16 1360 22-- 29 ...221 42 26 24 23 3255 14 31 18 35 12 35 15 2150 30 18 25 25 25 18 26 2245 21 28 33 16 20 14 35 1640 22_- 17 44 7 25 25 31 1535 16 3 11 11 21 4 13 1430 6 15 5 4 15 13 5 725 19 10 0 14 9 12 5 620 20 2 4 8 13 7 4 815 4 2 I 11 3 1 1 1010 8 3 1 , 0 6 2 0 405 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1

01 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1

Total 248 248 248 248 248 248 248 248Mean 49.25 56.44 56.43 55.89 51.52 58.21 57.34 56.51S.D. 21.25 21.68 18.24 21.14 21.38 21.80 19.06 22.71

8

Tab

le 6

.Ii

terc

orre

latio

ns A

mon

g T

w-l

ityV

aria

bles

*

1213

1415

1617

1819

20V

ac f

able

23

45

67

89

1011

Edu

catio

n (1

)13

36.

2235

1228

3032

0510

100

0424

12.

46.7

,/6

93:

.)31

,14

4236

3722__

4329

32-0

510

1500

0010

3543

3040

24A

FQT

Sco

re (

2143

6758

6232

5065

5068

6450

4850

3633

11'7

1052

7463

6036

5667

4668

6442

4348

2425

2629

20A

QE

Mun

n (3

)56 62

74 7733 49

53 5740 52

57 6001 05

28 3127 30

09 0908 11

26 -I,

__43 41

45 4135 40

36 452(

4-1

-

AQ

E E

lect

14)

6960

3842

6536

5454

3832

4938

3824

34-,

--,

_ ,

7172

4651

6742

6065

3845

5335

3732

463'

AQ

E. G

en (

5)62

4451

6320

4643

2617

3741

5241

4733

6549

5762

1942

4619

1933

3541

3947

26A

QE

Mec

h (6

)24

3748

5856

6157

4949

2427

1223

1630

3845

5349

6245

5552

2723

3237

21C

odin

g Sp

eed

(7)

3449

0419

2715

1,4

1839

3624

2814

3941

0629

2115

0911

2733

2637

25W

ord

Kno

wle

dge

(8)

5824

4155

3733

5129

3919

3018

5517

3648

3022

4329

2926

3417

Ari

th R

easo

ning

(9)

2956

5938

2744

4552

3142

3022

5453

2230

3643

3129

3820

Too

l Kno

wle

dge

(10)

4559

7062

4904

06-

0409

0144

5856

6353

01-

-02

0509

12Sp

ace

Perc

eptio

n (1

1)64

3735

4128

3010

2113

6433

3937

'_2

1817

1914

Mec

h C

ompr

ehen

sion

(12

)60

5957

2131

0825

1154

5760

2318

1722--

12Sh

op I

ntbr

inat

ion

(13)

6861

0205

0610

0054

5302

0204

0705

Aut

o In

form

atio

n (1

4)50

0001

1511

0058

00-

-03

0405

02E

lect

Inf

orm

atio

n (1

5)15

2415

2514

2013

1418

12A

lgeb

ra (

16)

5628

4029

Geo

met

ry (

17)

5632 46

,47 51

1, -- 3949

5637

Tri

gono

met

ry (

18)

4555

3730

Che

mis

try

(19)

49 42Ph

ysic

s (

20)

Dec

imal

poi

nts

omitt

ed. I

n ea

ch c

ell,

the

top

entr

y is

bas

ed o

n sa

mpl

e 2X

C w

hale

the

botto

m e

ntry

is b

ased

on

sam

ple

2X.

Table 7. ASVAB Means and Standard Deviationsfor Samples 2XC and 2X

Test

Sample

2XC 2XMean SD Mean SD

Coding Speed 43.60 11.42 43.87 11.95Word Knowledge 14.95 4.26 14.91 4.59Arithmetic Reasoning 15.00 5.36 14.72 5.43Tool Knowledge 15.11 5.30 15.19 5.05Space Perception 16.68 5.05 17.30 5.07Mechanical Comprehension 14.98 4.58 15.40 4.72Shop Information 15.67 4.70 15.26 4.57Automotive Information 15.99 ,1,68 16.00 4.85Electronics Information 15.06 435 15:49 4.94

10

Table 8. Analysis of Variance Summary

Source SS df MS F p SS df MS F p

Total

Coding Speed

70,401.43 495

Word Knowledge

8,712.67 495Format 18.97 1 18.97 .16 ns .20 1 .20 .017 ns

Decile 10,078,23- 1,439.75 11.80 G.001 2,755.13 7 393.59 33.05 <.001Format x

Deci le 1,721.84 7 245.98 2.02 G.05 242.25 7 34.61 2.90 <.01Error 58,582,39 480 122.05 5,715.09 480 11.91

Arithmetic Reasoning Automobile Information

Total 14,450.68 495 11,263.00 495Format 9.88 1 9.88 .60 ns .06 1 .06 .003 ns

Decile 6,336.65 7 905.24 55.06 G.001 2,540.38 7 362.91 20.20 <.001Format x

Decile 215.12 7 30.73 1.87 ns 98.14 7 14.02 .78 nsError 7,889.03 480 16.44 8,624.42 480 17.96

Electrical Information Tool Knowledge

Total 10,684.71 495 14,085.02 495Format 23.52 1 23.52 1.46 as 2.61 1 2.61 .12 ItsDocile 2,855.20 7 407.89 25.24 <.001 3,466.80 7 495.26 22.68 <.00

Format xDocile 48.24 7 6.89 .43 ns 131.97 7 18.85 .86 ns

Error 7,757.75 480 16.16 10,483.64 480 21.84

Space Perception Mechanical Comprehension

Total 12,751.97 495 10,749.56 495Format 47.82 1 47.82 3.38 ns 21.39 1 21.39 1.51 nsDocile 5,857.14 7 836.73 59.09 G.001 4,390.06 7 627.15 44.29 <.001

Format xDocile 51.21 7 7.32 .52 ns 112 02 7 16.00 1.23 ns

Error 6,795.80 480 14.16 6,226.09 480 12.97

Shop Information

Total 10,677.35 495Format 20.98 1 20.98 1.25 nsDeci le 2,494.26 7 356.32 21.15 <.001

Format xDocile 74.41 7 10.63 .63 ns

Error 8,087.70 480 16.85

11

Tab

le 9

. ASV

AB

Mea

ns a

nd S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

ns w

ith A

FQT

Dec

des

AFQ

TE

leci

le

Cod

ing

Spee

dW

ord

Kno

wle

dge

Ari

thm

etic

Rea

soni

ngT

ool

Kno

wle

dge

Spac

ePe

rcep

tion

Mec

hani

cal

Com

preh

ensi

onSh

opin

form

atio

nA

utom

otiv

eIn

form

atio

nE

lect

roni

csIn

form

atio

n2X

C2X

2XC

2X2X

C2X

2XC

2X2X

C2X

2XC

2X2X

C2X

2XC

2X2X

C2X

90-9

9M

51.

1153

.97

17.8

318

.57

20.6

620

.43

19.4

618

.43

21.5

722

.60

19.4

919

.89

19.5

118

.31

20.0

918

.83

18.9

719

.23

S8.

8811

303.

243.

134.

193.

783.

824.

103.

113.

1133

92.

7533

72.

823.

1733

54.

074.

1980

-89

M 4

5.18

45.0

017

.29

17.7

118

3017

.96

18.2

118

4620

.96

2034

17.5

419

.11

18.6

417

.86

18.9

618

.50

17.7

919

04S

11.8

511

.98

2.56

2.39

3.74

3.99

4.27

4.63

3.04

3.21

2.94

3.17

3.07

4.64

3.58

4.83

3.14

3.50

70-7

9M

43.

5344

.37

1630

16.7

716

.93

1730

16.7

716

.53

19.1

319

5317

.20

17.2

716

.93

16.9

316

.73

1 8.

1016

.07

17.5

0S

10.0

311

.90

3.02

3.89

3.86

394

435

427

3.21

3.13

2.90

338

4.69

3.95

4.16

4.10

3.74

330

60-6

9M

44.

1947

.96

14.2

216

3314

5615

9615

.07

14.5

917

3719

.26

1533

15.8

115

5615

3714

5915

.04

14.3

014

30S

939

9.19

4.75

3.78

4.27

4.47

4.75

4.98

4.02

3.26

433

3.42

4.72

3.40

4.56

4.15

3.49

3.92

50-5

9M

46.

1840

.03

16.1

813

.09

15.2

112

.09

13.6

415

.67

1545

.16

.00

14.1

214

.40

1436

14.6

714

.94

16 2

414

.03

14.9

1S

11.0

311

.12

330

4.66

4.57

4.06

4.24

4.80

4.03

4.05

331

4.74

3.47

4.65

4.25

4.40

436

4.45

4049

M 4

2.61

40.4

514

.12

13.4

513

.42

14.2

113

.70

13.8

714

.00

14.8

814

.24

1324

14.9

113

.45

15.8

515

3013

.97

13.8

8S

12.1

612

.03

332

4.26

141

3.76

439

451

3.41

4.64

339

4.16

3.71

4.79

4.06

4.86

3.70

4.88

30-3

9M

39.

8438

.89

1230

1239

10.8

99.

9512

3111

.00

13 3

013

.24

11.9

712

.41

12.4

913

3013

.54

13.0

812

.65

12.2

4S

10.2

910

.60

4.17

437

430

4.08

5.42

5.74

4.86

4.21

3.82

3.70

450

391

4.07

431

3.18

5.41

20-2

9M

34.

2040

.36

10.2

810

.64

9.24

9.64

41.3

211

.16

1152

12.4

093

210

.84

13.0

012

0012

3212

3612

4812

.88

9.85

8.77

3.88

3.33

331

4.09

5.17

3.97

332

3.88

3.45

356

457

434

4.26

5.05

3.94

4.96

Table 10. Raw Score Distributions on Coding Speed*(Samples 2.Vand 2X)

Score 2) C 2X Score 2 XC 2X Score 2XC 2X Score 2XC 2X Score 2XC 2X

80 64 2 2 1 48 12 9 32 7 9 16

79 63 3 2 47 8 9 31 4 2 15

78 1 62 1 46 6 9 30 7 1 14

77 61 1 4 45 8 4 29 3 4 13

76 1 I 60 4 1 44 9 7 28 1 6 12

75 59 5 5 43 13 9 27 3 4 11

74 58 3 42 11 11 26 2 4 10

73 1 57 6 3 41 10 4 25 1 1 9

72 3 56 5 6 40 6 7 24 4 2 8

71 1 55 9 5 39 6 13 23 4 7

70 2 54 3 8 38 9 2 22 2 2 6

69 1 53 5 8 37 3 8 21 2 5

68 1 52 5 7 36 7 5 20 2 4

67 2 2- 5 1 9 5 35 9 8 19 2 1 3

66 2 50 6 10 34 2 7 18 I 2

65 12 49 7 8 33 4 6 17 1 2 1

Total N

'Scor range is from 0 to 100. Scoring formula: Right only

13

248 248

luhle / /. Raw Score* Distributions for ASVAB Tests 2 Through 9(Samples 2M: and 2.1)

Scores

WK AR TK Sp MC SI Al El

2XC 2X 2XC 2X 2XC 2X 2XC 2X 2XC 2X 2XC 2X 2XC 2X 2XC 2X

25 1 1 6 4 2 3 9 15 2 2 5 I 2 5 5 424 3 6 13 17 12 11 18 20 3 7 5 3 13 1 1 6 10

23 1

6 6 8 10 18 15 16 21 11 10 13 10 18 16 10 12

21 4 15 18 9 14 15 24 25 12 15 20 22-- 17 22 10 16

20 20 14 15 17 20 20 28 23 19 19 19 17 21 25 II 2219 I I 5 6 I 1 2 5 2- 1 3

18 43 30 14 12 20 18 22 19 28 32 21 25 22 14 20 23

17 19 25 24 19 21 20 17 20 21 29 31 26 26 23 27 21

16 42 30 23 18 21 25 18 22 26 30 28 39 23 21 33 2215 3 4 2 7 I 4 5 6 2 5 2 8 I 7

14 25 31 22 19 26 25 20 19 22 18 25 23 28 18 33 22

13 ,.....

, 24 17 31 IN 17 22 15 32 18 24 18 20 26 34 2912 13 14 12 14 18 18 18 10 12 9 15 9 12 12 18 13

II 2_ 7 I 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 5 I 910 16 13 18 16 18 v., 14 8 10 10 14 15 12 8 11 89 I I 7 13 II 9 10 8 9 10 13 7 9 15 18 13 10

8 6 7 II 8 14 11 5 6 11 10 5 10 9 5 8 5

7 I 5 I 3 2 I 5 3 1 3

6 5 6 4 8 2 5 5 4 4 6 5 12 4 3

5 3 3 6 4 5 1 3 3 1 4 4 3

4 1 12 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 1 1

3 I 1 I 1 2 1 1 1

2,- 1

,- 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1

I I I 1 1 2 2 2

0 1

'Scoring formulae: RI3.

REFERENCES

Bayroff, A.G., & Fuchs, E.F. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. BESRL Technical Report1161. February 1970.

Vitoin, B.M.. & Alley, W.E. Develipment and standardization of Air Force composites for the ArmedServices Vocational Aptitude Battery. AFHRLTR68.110, AD688 222. Lackland AFB, Tex.:Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, September 1968.

14